45ACP or 9mm.

[stchman]

This has probably been discussed ad nauseum, but I got in a discussion with a another person a few days ago and he was like "if you shoot someone with a 9mm, you'll just piss them off, you need to shoot them with a 45".

Right away I knew he was FOS.

People need to realize that the 45ACP is a low speed. low pressure round. Yes, it's big, but it only travels ~850fps while 9mm travels ~1300fps.

What this all translates to is the 45ACP and 9mm have roughly the same energy upon impact.

Well, the FOS guy refused to believe me, so I guess he can be in his ignorant bliss.

I own 3 45ACP pistols and 5 9mm pistols so I am not biased towards either.

 

[Okcafe86]

Shot placement

 

[buck460XVR]

You're preachin' to the choir.......

 

[stchman]

I think too many people have their egos invested in a certain caliber and/or firearm.

 

[RussellC]

For what it's worth, the FBI just went to 9mm.

Russellc

 

[19-3Ben]

"if you shoot someone with a 9mm, you'll just piss them off, you need to shoot them with a 45".

What is this, 1992? Do people still speak in clichés like that? That's right up there with the old nonsense about shooting a bad guy through a door.

"With a 9mm it's 'bang bang bang bang bang bang', open up the door and he's dead.
With .45acp is 'bang, bang,' open up the door and he's dead.
With a 12ga it's 'BANG,' and then just look through the hole where the door used to be and you'll see where the bad guy used to be."

And of course there's the classic "if someone shot me with a .22 and I found out about I'd be mad!"

This sounds to me like typical banter of an ignorant halfwit standing around an LGS.

 

[bikerdoc]

You are right. It has been discussed ad nauseum.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Not again! Ignorance is as hard to eliminate as weeds. Knowledge is as hard to proliferate as orchids.

 

[CWL]

So, like, um, is fast & light better than big & slow?

 

[Nom de Forum]

So, like, um, is fast & light better than big & slow?

It is if you are running the marathon but not so much if you are shotputting.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by stchman: What this all translates to is the 45ACP and 9mm have roughly the same energy upon impact.

"Energy upon impact" really doesn't count for anything. It all boils down to what parts of the anatomy of the target are affected, and how.

That depends on penetration and on where the bullets enter the target, and at what angle.

The penetration of either round is generally sufficient.

The likelihood of a sufficiently quick "one shot stop" is low. In addition, a defender cannot analyze anatomical vital zones and the angle at which the shots will enter the attacker and determine just where to aim, and even if he could, his chances of hitting just where he would so choose are remote. What all of that means is that the defender will more than likely have to fire two or three or maybe even more very quick shots, regardless of what caliber he is using.

Both the lighter recoil, which results from the lower momentum, of the 9MM, and a higher likely capacity of a 9 make it a better choice from the standpoint of being able to score those several hits very quickly.

Now, if all other things proved equal--that is, if the defender were able to land the same number of hits in the same places in the same time with either gun--the slightly larger permanent wound channel of the .45 would give it an advantage. But all things are never equal.

The .45 does have one other advantage over a hot 9: lower sound energy. That can make a difference both in being able to hear after the shots are fired and in the likely level of permanent noise-induced hearing loss, particularly indoors.

 

[stchman]

I am hoping this thread does not digress into a 9mm vs. 45 and which is more manly.

 

[Schwing]

Over the last few decades, I have seen this pop up so often that I have developed and almost autonomic eye-roll response.

Of all the folks arguing the dominant nature of THEIR preferred caliber, I have yet to meet one willing to stand down range and catch the smaller/larger, faster/slower, and otherwise inferior bullets they so despise

I own both. I carry both. I would trust proper shot placement to be equally effective with both.

 

[LubeckTech]

Is worse to be hit by a large man once or a small man repeatedly??

Realistically several 9mm rounds are more likley to stop an attacker than a single .45 but a Howitizer will certainly do the job.

 

[Hanshi]

I've owned numerous 9MM and .45acp pistols. I only currently own one 9mm; a Browning HI-power. I shoot more .45acp and really love the feel of the 1911 platform. The Hi-power has a similar feel. I like the 9mm quite a lot, though.

 

[Kleanbore]

FBI?

Posted by RussellC: For what it's worth, the FBI just went to 9mm.

Widely repeated, but it may not be true.

The only place I have found that statement is on gun boards, and never with any source reference that can be validated.

Now, if is true that the FBI has relased a pre-solicitation notice mentioning a proposed requirement for two sizes of 9MM pistols and for simunitions. It is characterized as having been released "for planning purposes only".

 

[1KPerDay]

If I had an unlimited supply of brass I'd shoot .45 more. But I'm worried about losing it so I generally only shoot it if I "have to" for Heavy Metal Irons division. I mostly shoot 9mm in matches because I don't care if I lose my brass.

As for which is better for defensive use, several sources have shown (none of which I can produce evidence for....) that all of the top defensive calibers perform just about identically with quality defensive ammo.

 

[TomJ]

I happened to come across an article regarding this today that made a lot of sense. They stressed 2 key points. First, the advances in bullet technology over the past 20 to 30 years has current, high quality 9mm SD ammunition on par with .45's in regards to expansion and penetration. While his statement may have been true decades ago, it no longer is as applied to quality 9mm ammunition. Second, the key phrase is quality 9mm ammunition. Cheap ammunition from no-name suppliers will probably not perform as well as a .45. The difference between a quality .45 and a quality 9mm is now negligible. Pick whatever you shoot best and are most comfortable. I carry and am comfortable with both.

 

[BigBL87]

For me, in addition to all the other arguments for 9mm, I can afford to practice alot more with 9mm than I'd be able to with 45. Thats the main reason I went with 9mm.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by 1KPerDay: As for which is better for defensive use, several sources have shown (none of which I can produce evidence for....) that all of the top defensive calibers perform just about identically with quality defensive ammo.

One can find numerous sources that conclude that in terms of terminal ballistics, all of the generally accepted service rounds (such as .38 Special and its longer Magnum derivative, 9MM, .38 Super, .357 SIG, .40 S&W, .45 GAP, and .45 ACP), used with modern premium defensive ammunition, meet the FBI standards for effectiveness.

However, capacity and the ability to fire the gun rapidly with combat accuracy also enter into the picture.

That (along with wear and tear issues) is why many police departments are switching to the 9MM.

It is also why Rob Pincus, who once favored the .45 ACP and later the .40, now favors the 9MM.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I think too many people have their egos invested in a certain caliber and/or firearm.

I agree.

Use which ever you are better with. I shoot 45 well, so that's what I carry. I am in the market for a 9mm though too. Modern ammo has largely made it a non-debate.

My one argument is that if a bullet fails to expand for some reason, a 45 makes a bigger hole. Again though, I think modern ammo has limited this problem.

 

[Red Wind]

Gun Tests in the latest issue, (October,2014) hired an expert, John Ervin of Brass Fletcher Ballistic Testing, to do a 9 vs 45 comparison. 5 pages of excellent statistics,graphs and solid information.

The conclusions:"They are functionally identical-the target will not know the difference because the difference is so small. They are certainly better choices than the .380 ACP or .38 Special, but no cartridge will ward off evil spirits or drop a guy with a near miss".

The main contention, as so many here have said: Shot placement is the key. GT recommends shooting both on the challenging FBI Special Agent course starting with the 9mm Luger.

Then, step up to the.45 ACP and see if you can still pass the qualification.

If you want more performance,go to the 10mm.

 

[Spats McGee]

TomJ, what I'm about to post is not really directed "at you," but you happen to be the one that brought up a point that has consistently caused me some confusion.

. . . .the advances in bullet technology over the past 20 to 30 years has current, high quality 9mm SD ammunition on par with .45's in regards to expansion and penetration. . . . .

I often see this argument used to support claims that "9mm is just as good as .45." I recognize that 9mm has, through advances in bullet technology, improved quite a bit over the years. What I fail to understand is why folks think that the .45 is the same as it was 40 years ago. Have not both cartridges improved? Have improvements in 9mm dramatically outstripped those that have happened to the .45?

As far as I've been able to tell, all handgun rounds are relatively poor man-stoppers. As a buddy of mine likes to say, "If I knew I was goin' to a gunfight, I'd go somewhere else. If I knew I was goin' and couldn't get out of it, I'd take a rifle . . . and friends . . . with rifles."

 

[jrdolall]

You are right. It has been discussed ad nauseum.

And will be again.

I prefer shooting the 45, specifically the 1911 platform. I have many more 9mm pistols than 45 pistols and the same goes for carbines. 9mm is less expensive to shoot. I carry a 9mm. I have never had to use either one in a SD scenario and I hope I never do. If I did then I think I would prefer the 9mm SIMPLY because of the increased capacity of a fullsized gun. I know I will be in panic mode and will probably need all the shots I can get.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Spats McGee: I often see this argument used to support claims that "9mm is just as good as .45." I recognize that 9mm has, through advances in bullet technology, improved quite a bit over the years. What I fail to understand is why folks think that the .45 is the same as it was 40 years ago. Have not both cartridges improved? Have improvements in 9mm dramatically outstripped those that have happened to the .45?

Spats, someone posed that question some tim back, and if I recall correctly, the answer went something like this: the .45 started out with adequate performance w.r. t. penetration, at least when requirements for penetrating plate glass and auto bodies were not present. The introduction of quality JHP bullets increased the permanent wound channel.

The 9MM, on the other hand, was a clearly inferior performer at the outset. There was simple more room for improvement, and modern powders and bullet construction have bought it within the competitive range of the .45 (and, I might add, of the once-far-superior .38 Super) in terms of terminal ballistics.

Frankly, I did not do any in-depth research on the subject before I bought my .45 about five years ago, and I knew none of the above at the time. Nor was I sufficiently aware of the advantages of the higher capacity and lower recoil of the 9MM in a defensive shooting application.